The intellectual dark web

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

When did the liberal ideal of "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" change to "I disagree with what you say, and will censor and de-platform you to prevent further exposure of your wrongthink"?

Extremists beliefs need to be exposed in the light and denounced/mocked for the toxic ideals that they espouse, not forcibly relocated to echo-chambers in the dark corners of the internet where they will only fester and self-reinforce, not being challenged in any meaningful way.

Yeah how's that been working out lately.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/u...-the-base.html

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/p...e-duty-troops/

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...celerationism/

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

When did the liberal ideal of "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" change to "I disagree with what you say, and will censor and de-platform you to prevent further exposure of your wrongthink"?

Extremists beliefs need to be exposed in the light and denounced/mocked for the toxic ideals that they espouse, not forcibly relocated to echo-chambers in the dark corners of the internet where they will only fester and self-reinforce, not being challenged in any meaningful way.

You cannot be 'reasoned' out of an opinion you did not 'reason' yourself into.

I think you're assuming that all opinions can have light shed upon them and be debunked and the people that hold those opinions and beliefs can come to see that light, the error of their ways and change.

Some times noise just needs to be turned off when its clearly just noise.

And you are absolutely correct, that noise will find itself dark corners and echo-chambers where it will fester and self-reinforce. But some people, regardless of challenge or evidence or reason simply do not want to, and will not change.

Really the only options are that those voices, and we're talking the real hardcore extremists here, have to be brushed aside and ignored...or silenced.

[FunkMasterFlame]

Originally Posted by Locke

You cannot be 'reasoned' out of an opinion you did not 'reason' yourself into.

I think you're assuming that all opinions can have light shed upon them and be debunked and the people that hold those opinions and beliefs can come to see that light, the error of their ways and change.

Some times noise just needs to be turned off when its clearly just noise.

And you are absolutely correct, that noise will find itself dark corners and echo-chambers where it will fester and self-reinforce. But some people, regardless of challenge or evidence or reason simply do not want to, and will not change.

Really the only options are that those voices, and we're talking the real hardcore extremists here, have to be brushed aside and ignored...or silenced.

Yes, I believe people can be reasoned out of extremist beliefs. Certainly not everyone, and definitely not the hardcore believers, but average people who may simply be curious or are just "dipping their toe" into extremism can very easily have their minds changed by a proper debunking or public mocking. A lot of the time the public debate and argument is not for changing the mind of the extremist, but for the lurkers watching from the sidelines.

Extremists wither in the light. They grow in the dark.

[PsYcNeT]

When your entire income relies on being a grifter pandering to the most hateful demographic possible, assuming you aren't a True Believer in the first place, why give it up?

If the last 10 years has shown us anything, these guys just move further and further to the right as their platform grows, regardless of how many "debates" they have or exposure to other ideas.

If a bunch of neo-Nazis are giving you 10,000 a month on Patreon to make videos about why maybe women shouldn't be allowed in politics and perhaps civilization is crumbling because we allow colored folk to own property, why would you change because you're "exposed"?

It's 2020 and the idea that you can reason a grifter out of their grift is pathetic.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

Yes, I believe people can be reasoned out of extremist beliefs. Certainly not everyone, and definitely not the hardcore believers, but average people who may simply be curious or are just "dipping their toe" into extremism can very easily have their minds changed by a proper debunking or public mocking. A lot of the time the public debate and argument is not for changing the mind of the extremist, but for the lurkers watching from the sidelines.

Extremists wither in the light. They grow in the dark.

So you believe that not only should white nationalists have freedom of speech (which they do, nothing about that has changed here) but that businesses should be required to provide them free platforms with an unlimited audience to spread hate speech?

Interesting.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So you believe that not only should white nationalists have freedom of speech (which they do, nothing about that has changed here) but that businesses should be required to provide them free platforms with an unlimited audience to spread hate speech?

Interesting.

Agree with this. The no de-platforming argument seems to discount that even if you kick these guys off Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit and whereever else. They still can find a bigger audience than literally ever in history by using the 'free speech/right wing' social networks or hosting this stuff on the internet on their own. It's not like in the days of 10 TV channels each one of them dedicated an hour a week to the pro-nazi groups.

[FunkMasterFlame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So you believe that not only should white nationalists have freedom of speech (which they do, nothing about that has changed here) but that businesses should be required to provide them free platforms with an unlimited audience to spread hate speech?

Interesting.

They can make any decision they want, I just think its pretty hypocritical that these companies portray themselves as an open platforms (including keeping all the legal protection that entails) while acting like a biased publisher curating and censoring ideas and beliefs they disagree with.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

They can make any decision they want, I just think its pretty hypocritical that these companies portray themselves as an open platforms (including keeping all the legal protection that entails) while acting like a biased publisher curating and censoring ideas and beliefs they disagree with.

Maybe look up the paradox of tolerance as it should help you understand what’s going on. No one is required to provide a platform for white supremacist viewpoints, curious hill to die on. I am beginning to question your credentials as a master of funk.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

They can make any decision they want, I just think its pretty hypocritical that these companies portray themselves as an open platforms (including keeping all the legal protection that entails) while acting like a biased publisher curating and censoring ideas and beliefs they disagree with.

They are open platforms, but still have terms and conditions. I don’t see the issue.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

They can make any decision they want, I just think its pretty hypocritical that these companies portray themselves as an open platforms (including keeping all the legal protection that entails) while acting like a biased publisher curating and censoring ideas and beliefs they disagree with.

Hypocritical how? As Scroopy mentioned, they have terms and conditions. There are specific policies in place. One of those is that you can't spread hate speech, which also happens to be restricted by law in many countries.

They're still open platforms. You can spread nearly any idea you want, so long as you aren't spreading hate speech, which seems pretty fair.

Are you suggesting that hate speech is simply a "disagreeable idea"? Given that there is no shortage of voices on these platforms from across the political spectrum, what ideas or beliefs do you think they disagree with?

Do you disagree with restricting hate speech?

[JohnnyB]

Platforms like YouTube aren't simply hosts for the user's content in an open marketplace of ideas anyways. They're filtering content all the time. They are more like a system of chutes that start you in one spot but then guide you into a comfortable, self-affirming cocoon in which you don't have to deal with anything that contradicts your new world view. People return for content they like, not content that disrupts them, and the platform providers thrive on that.

The choice for platforms like YouTube is between being an active contributor to radicalization and social division, changing their content delivery and business model, or eliminating end points they see as harmful.

[FunkMasterFlame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Hypocritical how? As Scroopy mentioned, they have terms and conditions. There are specific policies in place. One of those is that you can't spread hate speech, which also happens to be restricted by law in many countries.

They're still open platforms. You can spread nearly any idea you want, so long as you aren't spreading hate speech, which seems pretty fair.

Are you suggesting that hate speech is simply a "disagreeable idea"? Given that there is no shortage of voices on these platforms from across the political spectrum, what ideas or beliefs do you think they disagree with?

Do you disagree with restricting hate speech?

I disagree with nebulous definitions of what "hate speech" entails. Today it may be White Supremacists and Nazis. Tomorrow its critics of BLM. Next week it might be any perspective to the right of Mao. Selective enforcement of overly-broad weasel-worded TOS is a problem for me.

Regulating speech is a complex subject and an extremely slippery slope that needs constant public vigilance to prevent the government from encroaching upon, let alone mega-corporations that already monopolize discourse on the internet. I would prefer to err on the side of allowing all speech (excepting already agreed upon illegal speech such as incitement to imminent violence, doxxing, links to child porn, etc..) with all the ugliness and warts that entails.

[IrishSpring2013]

"First they came for the Nazi's..."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

I disagree with nebulous definitions of what "hate speech" entails. Today it may be White Supremacists and Nazis. Tomorrow its critics of BLM. Next week it might be any perspective to the right of Mao. Selective enforcement of overly-broad weasel-worded TOS is a problem for me.

Regulating speech is a complex subject and an extremely slippery slope that needs constant public vigilance to prevent the government from encroaching upon, let alone mega-corporations that already monopolize discourse on the internet. I would prefer to err on the side of allowing all speech (excepting already agreed upon illegal speech such as incitement to imminent violence, doxxing, links to child porn, etc..) with all the ugliness and warts that entails.

LOL, at the slippery slope argument. Yes, capitalists organizations are going to ban discourse that doesn't adhere to Maoism. That makes so much sense. Genius stuff really.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

As extreme as those examples may be, there will always be pressure to expand the boundaries of forbidden topics of discussion and forbidden opinions and positions to include the ideological opponents of the people applying that pressure. It's not really very far fetched to suggest that criticism of BLM, or arguments suggesting that the police aren't actually institutionally racist and the story being portrayed by the media is not representative of realities on the ground, for example, would result in silencing tactics.

It's not that no line should be drawn by these platforms, it's that there should be serious suspicion of where the line is being drawn and why.

... I couldn't give less of a crap about Molyneux being banned from youtube though. Who youtube bans or demonitizes is not at the top of the list of concerns about how youtube is operating.

[Scroopy Noopers]

YouTube’s Terms of Service:

Removal of Content By YouTube

If we reasonably believe that any Content is in breach of this Agreement or may cause harm to YouTube, our users, or third parties, we may remove or take down that Content in our discretion.We will notify you with the reason for our action unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would breach the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority or would otherwise risk legal liability for YouTube or our Affiliates; (b) would compromise an investigation or the integrity or operation of the Service; or (c) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

I disagree with nebulous definitions of what "hate speech" entails. Today it may be White Supremacists and Nazis. Tomorrow its critics of BLM. Next week it might be any perspective to the right of Mao. Selective enforcement of overly-broad weasel-worded TOS is a problem for me.

Regulating speech is a complex subject and an extremely slippery slope that needs constant public vigilance to prevent the government from encroaching upon, let alone mega-corporations that already monopolize discourse on the internet. I would prefer to err on the side of allowing all speech (excepting already agreed upon illegal speech such as incitement to imminent violence, doxxing, links to child porn, etc..) with all the ugliness and warts that entails.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I can't really get in line with someone who believes the promotion of ethnic cleansing, Black people being seen as unintelligent savages, and that Jewish people are the enemy are positions that deserve promotion to an unlimited audience.

This is not a slippery slope argument nor is this about the government. This is fairly standard, hate speech is defined. You live in Canada, right? In terms of Canadian law, all three of the men (Duke, Molyneux, Spencer) banned by YouTube violate "already agreed upon illegal speech." So, do you or do you not support their right to spread hate speech despite the laws in the country you live?

Let's turn the slippery slope backwards. If we allow hate speech, why do you have a problem with child porn? I mean, it's not that much of a stretch, is it? Why can't people share child porn if they can promote ethnic cleansing? Isn't it dangerous to restrict our freedoms? What's next? First they ban child porn, then they ban regular porn, then they start putting restrictions on sexuality banning all sex not between a married man and a woman, and then they start banning sex altogether as a means to control the population? It's a slippery slope you know!

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's not that no line should be drawn by these platforms, it's that there should be serious suspicion of where the line is being drawn and why.

Exactly this. You can't escape making judgment calls.

If you want a marketplace of ideas that works, you can't have stalls full of rotten ideas and hidden poison pills. Some quality control is always necessary.

I don't think there's much of a serious discussion to be had over whether Stephan Molyneux adds something of value to the marketplace of ideas.

(Also, when classical liberals said "I'll defend your right to say something I really dislike", they were talking about each other, other privileged white men. They didn't mean actually everyone. The classical liberals record with protecting the voices of, say, women, ethnic minorities or the poor is mostly pretty bad. Even today "Classical liberals" are pretty much always white guys and at least middle class.)

[Bonecrushing Hits]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

We'll have to agree to disagree. I can't really get in line with someone who believes the promotion of ethnic cleansing, Black people being seen as unintelligent savages, and that Jewish people are the enemy are positions that deserve promotion to an unlimited audience.

This is not a slippery slope argument nor is this about the government. This is fairly standard, hate speech is defined. You live in Canada, right? In terms of Canadian law, all three of the men (Duke, Molyneux, Spencer) banned by YouTube violate "already agreed upon illegal speech." So, do you or do you not support their right to spread hate speech despite the laws in the country you live?

Let's turn the slippery slope backwards. If we allow hate speech, why do you have a problem with child porn? I mean, it's not that much of a stretch, is it? Why can't people share child porn if they can promote ethnic cleansing? Isn't it dangerous to restrict our freedoms? What's next? First they ban child porn, then they ban regular porn, then they start putting restrictions on sexuality banning all sex not between a married man and a woman, and then they start banning sex altogether as a means to control the population? It's a slippery slope you know!

This is interesting and you raise some good points; you addressed the obvious hate speech that most of us can agree upon but didn’t touch his question that what if next week it is decided that any criticism of BLM is now hate speech (for the record I have nothing critical to say about BLM). It’s who decides that that is the problem.

I don’t have definitive answers of even how I feel about some of these issues as it pertains to free speech protection or hate speech supression, but I do believe the slippery slope argument is worth discussing. It’s easy to point to obvious examples of racists like Spencer and Molyneux and agree that they shouldn’t be promoted or enjoy the same exposure as others, but it isn’t so easy with other greyer areas.

Let’s take for example immigration. It is commonplace now that anyone arguing against it is racist and therefore promoting hate speech. What if their argument is purely economic, numbers we can absorb yearly, the amount of available jobs, etc? Hate speech? De-platform? What if the argument is more cultural? People from X country seem to be having difficulty adapting and accepting our western values, especially towards women and lgbtq rights. Hate speech? Who decides? Should they be deciding?

What about anti-vaxxers? I believe that they are likely responsible for the loss of lives of many and should be given less options to spew idiotic conspiracies, but that is how I feel. Should they be de-platformed because I don’t like what they are saying? I’m not sure. I do think that the slippery slope is worth considering before censoring things we don’t like or agree with

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bonecrushing Hits

I don’t have definitive answers of even how I feel about some of these issues as it pertains to free speech protection or hate speech supression, but I do believe the slippery slope argument is worth discussing. It’s easy to point to obvious examples of racists like Spencer and Molyneux and agree that they shouldn’t be promoted or enjoy the same exposure as others, but it isn’t so easy with other greyer areas.

"Not clearcut" is just the definition of grey areas.

Yes there are always grey areas. It's not an argument that relates to Stephan Molyneux, because as you said he's not in the grey area.

The slippery slope argument with free speech is generations of old by now. It's been considered, and we know the answers. Yes it's always something to be aware of, yes there will always be grey area, yes limiting free speech is sometimes good.

The only thing that's really left to discuss are individual real life cases.

Let’s take for example immigration. It is commonplace now that anyone arguing against it is racist and therefore promoting hate speech. What if their argument is purely economic, numbers we can absorb yearly, the amount of available jobs, etc? Hate speech? De-platform? What if the argument is more cultural? People from X country seem to be having difficulty adapting and accepting our western values, especially towards women and lgbtq rights. Hate speech? Who decides? Should they be deciding?

What about anti-vaxxers? I believe that they are likely responsible for the loss of lives of many and should be given less options to spew idiotic conspiracies, but that is how I feel. Should they be de-platformed because I don’t like what they are saying? I’m not sure. I do think that the slippery slope is worth considering before censoring things we don’t like or agree with

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Unless you actually want to discuss these particular topics, you're just pointing out that yes, grey areas exist. We know.

(Yes you should de-platform anti-vaxxers, homeopaths and other quacks.)